(03 Jun 2023, 12:08 pm)Storx wrote If I'm correct, it's reducing it to the 'correct value' due to lower number of passes used isn't it?
But even then, I'd argue it's probably a good spend keeping the rate up rather than a cheap fix. Long term it's just going to mean subsidised services from them so no real gain.
Obviously what Arriva would've done if they kept the rate up is unknown but it arguably can't be worse than what it is.
Now whether that should've been spent by central government, councils, the BSIP fund or what not is a political debate that could be had but buses should be treat as a public service rather than a business imo.
Due to the lower number of passes used, and to reflect the reduction in service levels which have already taken place.
Arguably, it could end up being a vicious circle, if Durham County Council imposes a further reduction in ENCTS payments, due to the withdrawal of yet more routes.
From Durham CC’s perspective, why should they pay Arriva for all the ENCTS usage from Cockfield on service 6, when they are going to limit their number of journeys to just a few in each direction at peak times?
Likewise Nexus and Northumberland County Council - with the withdrawal of services 51 to 55, you would expect they would impose a reduction in ENCTS payments to Arriva, as they are no longer carrying the passengers.
The crux, I guess, of “fixed pot” deals, which cannot remain fixed if the network increases or decreases in size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk